ArticleProceedings. Biological sciences2018
The coevolution of cooperation and cognition in humans.
Article in Proceedings. Biological sciences, 2018. The graph could read no effect estimate from its abstract, so it casts no vote on the map. Cited by 11 papers.
What it found
Each row is one number read from the abstract, on the scale the paper reported it, with its interval. Left of the dashed line favours the treatment, right favours the comparator. Under each row is the sentence it came from. New to these charts? A ten-minute tutorial.
The abstract states no effect estimate the extractor could read, or names no intervention and outcome on the map, so this paper lights no cell and moves no belief. It is still indexed, cited and linked below.
The trial behind it
Trials whose registry record cites this paper, or whose number appears in the abstract. A trial that started after this paper was published is citing it as background, not reporting it.
Neither the registry nor the abstract names a trial number. If this is a trial report, that itself is worth knowing.
Who cites it
11 citing papers in PubMed.
- Review
- Evolutionary-developmental (evo-devo) dynamics of hominin brain size.Nature human behaviour · 2024Article
- Human cooperation and evolutionary transitions in individuality.Philosophical transactions of the Royal Society of London. Series B, Biological sciences · 2023Article
- Misrepresentation of group contributions undermines conditional cooperation in a human decision making experiment.Scientific reports · 2022Article
- ALS/FTD: Evolution, Aging, and Cellular Metabolic Exhaustion.Frontiers in neurology · 2022Article
- An agent-based model clarifies the importance of functional and developmental integration in shaping brain evolution.BMC biology · 2021Article
- Targeted conspiratorial killing, human self-domestication and the evolution of groupishness.Evolutionary human sciences · 2021Article
- Correlates of conflict resolution across cultures.Evolutionary human sciences · 2021Article
- Trinidadian guppies use a social heuristic that can support cooperation among non-kin.Proceedings. Biological sciences · 2020Article
- Collaboration leads to cooperation on sparse networks.PLoS computational biology · 2020Article
- Prosociality and a Sociosexual Hypothesis for the Evolution of Same-Sex Attraction in Humans.Frontiers in psychology · 2019Article
Corrections and comments
PubMed lists nothing against this paper. Absence here is not a guarantee, only a check that was made.
Authors and funding
2 authors.
Funding
No grant is acknowledged in the PubMed record.
Abstract
Cooperative behaviours in archaic hunter-gatherers could have been maintained partly due to the gains from cooperation being shared with kin. However, the question arises as to how cooperation was maintained after early humans transitioned to larger groups of unrelated individuals. We hypothesize that after cooperation had evolved via benefits to kin, the consecutive evolution of cognition increased the returns from cooperating, to the point where benefits to self were sufficient for cooperation to remain stable when group size increased and relatedness decreased. We investigate the theoretical plausibility of this hypothesis, with both analytical modelling and simulations. We examine situations where cognition either (i) increases the benefits of cooperation, (ii) leads to synergistic benefits between cognitively enhanced cooperators, (iii) allows the exploitation of less intelligent partners, and (iv) the combination of these effects. We find that cooperation and cognition can coevolve-cooperation initially evolves, favouring enhanced cognition, which favours enhanced cooperation, and stabilizes cooperation against a drop in relatedness. These results suggest that enhanced cognition could have transformed the nature of cooperative dilemmas faced by early humans, thereby explaining the maintenance of cooperation between unrelated partners.
Indexed as
Identifiers
What OpenQuestion holds
Registered trials
Read under generation 80e0d062 · epoch 390. Bibliography from PubMed, PubMed Central and OpenAlex; grants from NIH RePORTER; trial links from ClinicalTrials.gov; estimates, votes and beliefs from the OpenQuestion graph.